Mumford Cove Shellfish Survey Groton, Connecticut June 1981 United States Environmental EPA Protection Agency Region I NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL LABORATORY 60 WESTVIEW AVE. LEXINGTON MASSACHUSETTS 02173 ------- Mumford Cove Shellfish Survey Groton, Connecticut June 1981 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I Surveillance & Analsysis Division 60 Westview Street Lexington, MA 02173 ------- Table of Contents TITLE PAGE Acknowledgements 1 Discussion and Summary 2 Introduction 5 Cove Profile 5 Methodology 6 Species Densities 7 Species Results 8 The Economic Value of the Shellfish 10 Appendix 13 Hap of Mumford Cove Table 1 - Species Density bv Cove Table 2 - Species Density by Area Table 3 - Species Length Table 4 - Species Density and Stratification Frequency Bar Charts Soft-Shell Clam Hard-Shell Clam Mussel Surf Clam ------- Acknowledgement The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency appreciates the interest and efforts of the people who volunteered and assisted in the completion of the Shellfish Survey of Mumford Cove, Groton, Connecticut. We extend our thanks and acknowledgement to the following people: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Edward F.H. Wong Project Director RHODE ISLAND DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Richard T. Sisson Principle Marine Biologist Arthur Ganz Senior Marine Biologist Barbara Simon Computer Programmer RHODE ISLAND YOUNG ADULT CONSERVATION CORPS Paul Baczenski Group Leader CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES Malcolm C. Shutes, Jr. Principle Sanitarian Donald Bell Senior Sanitarian James Citak Senior Sanitarian CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Edward Parker Principle Sanitary Engineer William Hogan Principle Sanitary Engineer James Grier Principle Sanitary Engineer Michael Powers Sanitary Engineer Gary Powers Sanitary Engineer MITCHELL COLLEGE, NEW LONDONG, CONNECTICUT Dr. Thomas Hatfield Chairman, Life Science Department Virginia Magee Instructor of Biology Donna Magee Student UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND, KINGSTON, RHODE ISLAND Timothy C. Visel Instructor of Marine Science 1 ------- A Shellfish Survey of Mumford Cove Groton, Connecticut Discussion and Summary The survey discloses that Mumford Cove contains several species of shellfish which are of commercial value. The soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria) is the most abundant followed by the hard-shell clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) and to a lesser extent, the mussel (Mytilus edulis) and the surf clam (Spisula solidissima). Because of pollution, shellfishing in the Cove has been prohibited for many years thereby allowing for no utilization of the resource. One main cause for the closure is the presence of a sewer outfall located in a stream at the headwaters of the Cove. Possibly, leachate from a sanitary landfill north of the Cove may indirectly contribute to the pollution. The average density of the soft-shell clam in the Cove is 8.5 per square meter which, under management, could allow for a sport- fishery program. Sandy bottoms of Areas 1 and 2 show this population to be fairly distributed along the eastern shore of the Cove. The sandbar south of the boat moorings contain the heaviest number of soft-shell clams. The hard-shell clam is second in quantity with an average density of 0.33 per square meter. We found them distri- buted mostly in Areas 1 and 4, and to a lesser degree in Area 2. In general, the data list them in both sides of the channel and in the outer area of the Cove. They are not found in any area upstream. 2 ------- In Area 2, there is a heavy abundance of sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca) in the beach area by the house fronts. This could have some bearing on shellfish recruitment, but we are not sure. The shellfish, as observed, are healthy in appearance and do not seem to be subjected to any significant predation. Frequency bar charts show that 58.97% of the hard-shell clam is 2 inches or larger while the soft-shell clam is only 40.07%. There are some mussel beds in the outer cove and a few surf clams in the channel. In our judgement we feel that the present shellfish population will not support a commercial harvesting area. The density and length size data on the soft-shell clams from all 3 areas suggest that a sport-fishery program might be feasible if properly managed and funded. The minimum and maximum length sizes show that the age distribution is stable and successive generations are possible. As for the hard-shell clams, we do not, in our limited survey, see any amount worthy of commercial exploitation. We think that Mumford Cove could reasonably support and serve as a relay or trans- plant area for natural depuration. Sampling results indicate a uni- formity in sizing and an even growth rate of the shellfish. The presence of a bathing beach in Mumford Cove which is subject to the bathing water standard of 1000 total Fecal coliform per 100/ml supports our stand on the water quality potential for possible depuration. The State Health Services should initiate a comprehensive bacterial profile of Mumford Cove to determine the extent of the pollution. A "worst case" situation should be investigated by sampling during 3 ------- the four seasons of the year. Water collections should be in the upper and lower levels in the water column and at various stages of the tidal cycle. Assessment of the bacterial profile may signi- ficantly show a satisfactory period in which hard-shell clams can be transplanted. Thus, a program such as this can be established under a "seasonal closure". This additional activity would enhance and add to the other active water uses of the Cdve mentioned earlier. There is scant data on Area 3. This was due to high tidal con- ditions and surf actions at the time of sampling which kept two crews confined in the upper shoreline. We suspect if conditions were suitable, as the case may be, we should be able to find shellfish. The study did not reveal living oysters, ribbed mussel or razor clam. 4 ------- The Study Introduction Presently, and dating back for many years, Mumford Cove is closed to shellfish harvesting. However, recreational sports such as fishing, boating and bathing on a private beach are available to residents of the immediate area. The shellfish closure is due, in part, to a sewer outfall that empties into a stream at the Cove's headwaters and also, discharges from a sanitary landfill located north of Mumford Cove may be involved. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State, local officials, and area residents of Mumford Cove know that unless the pollution standards are met, there will be no chance of lifting the shellfish closure imposed on Mumford Cove by the State Department of Health Services. There are proposals to remove the sewer outfall and have it placed in an area remote from Mumford Cove. Therefore, EPA with the help of several organizations performed a shellfish survey in Mumford Cove to determine the densities, type and sizes of the shellfish in the beds. Furthermore, the value of the shellfish will be estimated and compared with shellfish at the market level. Cove Profile The Cove covers an area of about 332 acres of open waters. There is a navigational channel about 8 ft. deep running through the center and conspicuously marked by navigational buoys. Other than 5 ------- the channel, the depth of the Cove is shallow (less than 4 feet) for the roost part. Travelling upstream, the Cove becomes constricted and is bordered by wetlands on both sides and is fed by several small streams. One of the streams (Fort Hill Brook) is the receiving waters for the wastewater treatment plant. A state park occupies the west bank of the Cove and the eastern shore consists of a cluster of resi- dential homes with a man-made sandy beach front. There is a small wharf, boat launch ramp and parking lot adjacent to the beach. The Cove bottom is mostly sand and gravel with a slight tendency toward siltation in certain areas. The bottom of Area 1 consists mostly of sand and gravel. The channel bottom, however, is mostly mud and becomes anoxic toward the headwaters. We noted that the reaches of the headwaters had the appearance of septic conditions at the time of the examination. Intertidal zones of Area 2 are mostly gravel, sand and silty-sand. The northeastern portion of this area shows a heavy growth of a green sea lettuce. Most of the shallow portions, averaging about two to four feet in depth, indicate a pre- dominance of mud and some silty sand. The outer portion of the Cove, adjacent to the closure line, is mostly gravel, sand and cobblestone. The bottom is fairly firm at this point. Methodology We divided Mumford Cove into four study areas and included the channel borders and the outer cove or entrance. The survey crews noted and identified during sampling operations, the characteristics of bottom compositions within each designated area. We also described 6 ------- and identified the various bottom strata descriptively as: silty sand, mud, sand, gravel, cobble, and grassy-mud. While there are many varied species of natural shellfish, we concentrate on the few commercial variety that is suitable for human consumption. We count hard-shell clam, soft-shell clam, blue mussel, razor clam, scallop, and the oyster. Because this survey is not conducted for scientific evaluation, EPA and the Connecticut Health and Pollution Control officials propose that the study be conducted for informational purposes. Therefore, the project director elected to apply a simplified random sampling approach amounting to about 100 or more stations in all test areas rather than an exhaustive grid system entailing numerous stations supported by statistical significance. Allowing for patchiness in the resource distribution, the field crew sampled by using 1.0 square meter quadrats placed at randomly selected test pits in all 4 areas. They dug one foot deep and col- lected all the shellfish in churning baskets lined with V wire mesh. Shellfish were identified and measured for each corresponding station as well as notations made on the type of bottom. Species Densities Soft-shell clams are the most abundant in Mumford Cove. Hard- shell clam are next in line followed by the blue mussel and surf clam. In our sampling, we find no razor clam, scallop, oyster nor ribbed mussel. Averages for the four available species taken from a total of 121 stations are as follows: 8.5 soft-shell; 0.33 hard- shell clam; .11 blue mussel; and .05 for surf clam (Table 1). 7 ------- Species Results The soft-shell clam is the most abundant of all the shellfish sampled. The overall mean density is 8.5 per square meter with a range from 0-75 per station. The data shows heavy concentrations of soft-shell clams in Areas 1 and 2, and none in the remaining test areas. The protruding sandbar in Area 1 contains much of the soft- shell clams while the beach front in Area 2 contains a lesser amount. The bottom in Area 1 (Table 4) consists mostly of sand and gravel. In Area 2, the bottom is a mixture of mud, sand and gravel, with silty-sand. The average length of the soft-shell clam for the Cove is 50 mm with a range from 14 mm to 90 mm (Table 3). Surprisingly, the average size for both areas is 50 mm and that the ranges are similar. We suspect that this uniformity in measurement suggests a stable food supply, a normal growth rate, and an even predation throughout the Cove. Measurements show the size distribution of soft-shell clam exceeding 2" to be 40.07%. There are two other species, the blue mussel and surf clam which numbered in very small amounts. Out of 121 sample plots, we noted only 16 mussels and 5 surf clams. The mussels are located in Area 1 toward the outer cove in the direction of the closure line. Hard-shell clams are the second most abundant species found throughout the study area. The overall mean density is 0.33 per square meter with a range from 0-5 per station. The survey staff finds that most of the hard-shell clams are located in all three areas. There are no hard-shell clams in any area upstream. Given more 8 ------- time in Area 4, it is very likely that we would have counted more clams toward the closure line. The average length is 84 mm out of a total of 40 hard-shell clams, taken from 121 stations. Most of them are located in bottoms consisting of some gravel, but mostly sand, silty-sand and mud. The densities of the hard-shell clams in Area 4 are 16 and 15 in Area 1 for a total of 31. There are 9 hard- shell clams in Area 2 and none in Area 3. Measurements show the size distribution of the hard-shell clams when measures across the longest axis to be 58.97% of 2" or more. 9 ------- The Economic Value of the Shellfish Resource in Mumford Cove The first part of this report shows that the soft-shell clam resource is suited to a domestic sportsfishery management type of program. We urge also, that there is a potential hard-shell clam transplant depuration program. The following is an attempt to arrive at some relative worth or Values (value added increments) of the resource were it made available to them. We shall use a simple "multiplier"* to determine the economic value of the shellfish utilizing present market prices as factors in the study formulae in our computations. The method establishes a series of Values to denote the worth of shellfish during the entire commercial process. In our efforts we will attempt to show the Value of the shellfish to the family or sportsfisherman, as a result of his efforts. In other words, whatever amount the harvester removes from the shellfish beds is of equal Value to that which may be obtained in the commercial market. That Value is expressed as the Total Value given to the shellfish beyond the basic Landed Value. This is accom- plished through the use of a shellfish multiplier. Computation The shellfish multiplier is an empirical Value to assist in measuring the Values of a commercial shellfish production of a com- *Wong, Edward P.M. (1969). A Multiplier for Computing the Value of Shellfish, U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Needham, Massachusetts. 10 ------- munity or the Value added to the shellfish accrued within or outside the community. retail value (price) per unit Shellfish Multiplier (SM) = r— :— L~i^ c wholesale value price or Shellfish Multiplier (SM) = No. shellfish in wholesale No. shellfish in retail X price of retail price of wholesale to NW SM = Nr X Pr Pw Table A Number and value of shellfish by units of retail level Market Conditions soft clam hard clam Average Size of Clams 2" plus 23s" plus Consumer Unit pound pound Median No. Clams/Unit (Value Nr) 34 6 1980 Consumer Prices/Unit (Value Pr)$ .72 .80 Table B Number and value of shellfish by bulk unit at the wholesale Conditions of Clams soft clam hard clam Average Size of Clams 2" plus 2hn plus Wholesale Unit bushel 60 lbs bushel 70 lbs Median No. Clams/Wholesale (Value Nw) 1750 580 1980 Wholesale/Bulk (Value Pr)$ 24.00 37.00 11 ------- Table C Landed value of shellfish at dockside soft clam sold in bushel bulk = $24.00+ hard clam sold in bushel bulk = $37.00-1- SM = nn— 1 24.00 SM1 = 1.54 .80 SM2 * 37.00 SM2 = 2.09 1 2" soft clam 2 2h" hard clam Discussion Since the public does not buy at dockside we then calculate for a market Value reflecting the final prices to the customer. He take the SM results and multiply each by their respective shellfish basic value to give the potential of the shellfish. Calculations show that the Value added to the basic dockside price or wholesaler (Table C) of soft-shell clams comes to $37.00 per bushel and $77.33 for hard- shell clams. This final figure tells us that this is the end figure or Value added given to the shellfish. If Mumford Cove is suitable for recreational harvesting this is what the shellfish is worth to the family diggers. + average annual price for New England 12 ------- Appendix 13 ------- f'sti c/osu ^C. Kumford Cove Proton, Connecticut 5\CTr-SAMfc MUb 5ANJ> Gravel ^ COB.BUE b 1000 Yards' bwci-osec> Area ~332. ACKCS ------- Table I MUMFORD COVE 2 Cove Species, Density ( #/m ) N Specie Sum Min. Max. - Station X Value Value Deviation 121 Quahog 40 0 5 0.33 0.83 Soft shell 1014 0 75 8.5 16.2 to c o Razor clam 0 0 0 0 0 •H +> -u Scallop 0 0 0 0 0 to o H Q< Oyster 0 0 0 0 0 £5 Blue mussel 0 0 9 0.11 .85 Ribbed mussel 0 0 0 0 0 Surf clam 6 0 2 0.05 0.25 + = highest per station x = per station ------- Table 2 Area Species Density Area 1 Specie Station X Min. Value Max. Value Sum Station Dev: Quahog 33 0.45 0 4 15 1.03 Soft-shell 33 16 0 73 558 22.20 Blue mussel 33 0 0 0 0 0 Surf clam 33 .03 0 Area 2 1 1 0.17 Quahog 35 0.26 0 3 9 0.61 Soft-shell 35 13 0 75 456 16.04 Blue mussel 35 0 0 0 0 0 Surf clam 35 0 0 Area 3 0 0 0 Quahog 8 0 0 0 0 0 Soft-shell 8 0 0 0 0 0 Blue mussel 8 0 0 0 0 0 Surf clam 8 0 0 Area 4 0 0 0 Quahog 45 0.35 0 5 16 0.88 Soft-shell 45 0 0 0 0 0 Blue mussel 45 0 0 0 0 0 Surf clam 45 0.11 0.3 2 5 0.38 ------- Table 3 Species Length in Cove (in mm)* No. Shellfish Specie Min. Value Max.+ Value S. D. 40 881 14 6 Quahogs 56 27 Soft-shell 50 14 Blue mussel 49 26 Surf clam 93 58 84 90 69 142 13.6 15 12.4^ 29.8 15 482 1 Species Length in Areas Quahogs Soft-shell Surf clam Area 1 49 50 110 27 14 110 72 89 110 13.0 13.6 9 399 16 16 5 Quahogs Soft-shell Area 2 64 50 Area 3 0 0 Area 4 Quahogs 58 Blue mussel 49 Surf clam 90 39 18 40 26 58 84 90 72 69 142 15.4 17.2 9.3 12.4 32 + = per station * = Quahogs in Area 4 sized 26 mm or less will go through survey tongs. ------- TABLE 4 AREA 1 DENSITY AND STRATIFICATION Stratification No. Station % Bottom Quahog Soft Shell Razor Clam Blue Mussel Ribbed Mus. Surf Clam SD X SD X SD x SD x SD x SD x Silty Sand 1 3.0 * * * 4 4 * Mud 0 Sand 15 45.5 .18 4 .26 24.7 260 17.3 .25 1 .06 Gravel 17 51.5 1.27 11 .64 21.0 194 17.2 Cobble 0 Grassy Mud 0 SD = Standard Deviation * =. No computation ------- Stratification No. Station % Bottom AREA 2 Quahog SD X Silty Sand 8 23.5 Mud 8 23.5 .46 2 .25 Sand 7 20.6 1.11 5 .71 Gravel 12 32.4 .16 N) • 00 Cobble 0 Grassy Mud 0 TABLE 4 DENSITY AND STRATIFICATION Soft Shell Razor Clam Blue Mussel Ribbed Mus. Surf Clam SD X 26.1 146 18.2 15.7 100 12.5 12.2 87 12.4 9.5 123 10.2 SD x SD x SD x SD SD = Standard Deviation ------- TABLE 1 AREA 3 DENSITY AND STRATIFICATION No. % Stratification Station Bottom Quahog Soft Shell Razor Clam Blue Mussel Ribbed Mus. Surf Clam SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x Silty Sand 0 Mud 0 Sand 0 Gravel 8 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cobble 0 Grassy Mud 0 SD = Standard Deviation ------- TABLE 4 AREA 4 DENSITY AND STRATIFICATION No. % Stratification Station Bottom Quahog Soft Shell Razor Clam Blue Mussel Ribbed Mus. Surf Clam SD X SD x SD x SD x SD x SD x Silty Sand 1 2.2 * 5 5 * Mud 18 40.0 .38 3 .16 Sand 13 28.9 .37 2 .15 .75 4 .30 .63 4 .30 Gravel 0 Cobble 7 15.6 .37 1 .14 3.4 9 1.2 .37 1 .14 Grassy Mud 6 13.3 .98 5 .8 .40 1 .16 SD * = Standard Deviation = No computation ------- OCLC Connexion Page 1 of 1 OCLC 1141781451 Held by EHA - no other holdings Rec stat n Entered 20200225 Replaced 20200225 Type a ELvl K Srce d Audn Ctrl Lang eng BLvl m Form Conf 0 Biog MRec Ctry mau Cont GPubf LitF 0 Indx 0 Desc i Ills ab Fest 0 DtSt s Dates 1981 , 040 EHA #b eng *e rda #c EHA 088 EPA 901-R-81-010 099 EPA 901-R-81-010 049 EHAD 245 0 0 Mumford Cove shellfish survey, Groton, Connecticut / *c U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Surveillance & Analysis Division. 264 1 Lexington, MA : *b U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Surveillance & Analysis Division, *c 1981. 300 13 pages, 12 unnumbered leaves : *b tables, graphs, map ; *c 28 cm 336 text *b txt +2 rdacontent 337 unmediated *b n +2 rdamedia 338 volume *b nc +2 rdacarrier 500 "June 1981." 650 0 Shellfish fisheries #z Connecticut *z Groton. 710 1 United States. #b Environmental Protection Aaencv. *b Region I. #b Surveillance and Analysis Division, *e issuing body. Delete Holdings- Export- Label- Submit- Replace- Report Error- Update Holdings-C Validate-C Workflow-In Process aboutrblank 2/25/2020 ------- SPECIE LENGTH FREQUENCY Soft-Shell Clam (mm) FREQUENCY BAR CHART MIDPOINT LEN FREQ CUM. PERCENT CUM. FREQ PERCENT I 0 0 0.00 0.00 6 0 0 0.00 0. 00 11 0 0 0.00 0.00 lo *** 5 5 0.57 0.57 21 *********** 21 26 2.38 2.95 26 **************** 32 58 3.63 6.58 31;' ******************************** 64 122 7.26 13. 85 36 ********************************************** 91 213 10.3 3 24.18 41 ****************************************************** 108 321 12.26 36. 44 46 ******************************************************** 111 432 12.60 49.04 51 ************************************************ 96 528 10.90 59.93 56 ******************************** 64 592 7.26 67.20 61 ************************************************* 97 689 11.01 78.21 66 ********************************** 68 757 7.72 85. 93 71 ****************************** 59 816 6. 70 92.62 76 ******************* 37 853 4.20 96.82 81 ********* 17 870 1.93 98. 75 86 ** 4 874 0.45 99.21 91 **** 7 881 0.79 100.00 96 0 881 0.00 100.00 101 0 881 0.00 100.00 106: 0 881 0.00 100.00 111 0 881 0.00 100.00 116 0 881 0.00 100.00 121 0 881 0.00 100.00 126 0 881 0.00 100.00 131 0 881 0.00 100.00 136 0 881 0. 00 100.00 141 0 881 0.00 100.00 146 0 881 0.00 100.00 150 0 881 0.00 100.00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 FREQUENCY ------- SPECIE LENGTH FREQUENCY Hard-Shell Clam (mm) FREQUENCY BAR CHART MIDPOINT LEN FREQ CUM. PERCENT CllM« FREQ PERCENT 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 6 0 0 0.00 0.00 11 0 0 0.00 0.00 16 0 0 0.00 0.00 21 0 0 0.00 0.00 26 1 1 2« 56 2.56 31 ********** 1 2 2.56 5.13 36 ********** 1 3 2.56 7.69 41 ************************************************** 5 8 12.82 20.51 46 ************************************************** 5 13 12.82 33.33 51 ****************************** 3 16 7.69 41. 03 56 **************************************** 4 20 10.26 51.28 61 ************************************************************ 6 26 15.38 66.67 66 ***£******************************************************** 6 32 15.38 82.05 71 **************************************** 4 36 10.26 92.31 76 ********** 1 37 2.56 94. 87 81 ********** 1 38 2.56 97.44 86 ********** 1 39 2. 56 100.00 91 0 39 0.00 100.00 96 0 39 0.00 100.00 101 0 39 0.00 100.00 106 0 39 0.00 100.00 111 0 39 0.00 100.00 116 0 39 0.00 100.00 121 0 39 0.00 100.00 126 0 39 0.00 100.00 131 0 39 0.00 100.00 136 0 39 0.00 100.00 141 0 39 0.00 100.00 146 0 39 0.00 100.00 150 0 39 0.00 100.00 4. + — + + + + 12 3 4 5 6 FREQUENCY ------- SPECIE LENGTH FREQUENCY (mm) MIDPOINT LEN 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 150 Mussel FREQUENCY BAR CHART FREQ CUM. PERCENT CUM. FREQ PERCENT 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0. 00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 ******************** 1 1 7.14 7.14 0 1 0.00 7.14 **************************************** 2 3 14.29 21.43 ******************** 1 4 7.14 28.57 **************************************** 2 6 14.29 42.86 ************************************************************ 3 9 21.43 64.29 ******************** 1 10 7. 14 71.43 **************************************** 2 12 14.29 85.71 0 12 0.00 .85«71 **************************************** 2 14 14. 29 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 0 14 0.00 100.00 1 2 — + 3 FREQUENCY ------- SPECIE LENGTH FREQUENCY (mm) MIDPOINT LEN 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 150 Surf Clam FREQUENCY BAR CHART *******#*******************«********************** ft************************************************* EQ CUM, PERCENT CUM. FREQ PERCENT 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0. 00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 16.67 16.67 0 1 0.00 16.67 0 1 0.00 16.67 1 2 16.67 33.33 0 2 0.00 33.33 1 3 16.67 50.00 0 3 0.00 50.00 0 3 0.00 50.00 1 4 16.67 66.67 0 4 0.00 66.67 0 4 0.00 66.67 1 5 16.67 83.33 0 5 0.00 83.33 0 5 0.00 83. 33 0 5 0.00 83.33 0 5 0.00 83.33 0 5 0.00 83.33 1 6 16.67 100.00 0 6 0.00 100.00 0 6 0.00 100.00 ——+ 1 FREQUENCY ------- |